Establishing Appropriate Staffing 

Levels for Campus Public 

Safety Departments

Sue Woolfenden Q.P.M., Ph.D. and Bill Stevenson Ph.D. 

Establishing Appropriate 

Staffing Levels 

for Campus Public 

Safety Departments

Sue Woolfenden Q.P.M., Ph.D. and Bill Stevenson Ph.D. 
This project was supported by a Cooperative Agreement/Grant Number 2005-CK-WX-K017 awarded by the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily 

represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, 

or services should not be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are 

illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication. Given that URLs and websites are in 

constant flux, neither the author nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-34-8 

Originally published July 2011

Updated 2013
Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Letter from the Director

Dear Colleagues,

Our nation’s colleges and universities are traditionally open environments fostering education, 

diversity, and freedom. There are more than 20,000 campus police and security officers dedicated 

to protecting these campuses and the students, faculty, and staff that they serve. To achieve their 

mission, they use a wide range of protection models, from full service police departments to 

contracted non-sworn personnel, that would benefit from implementing a community oriented 

policing approach to problem-solving, community engagement, and organizational policy 

development. Regardless of the size of the college or university or the number of campus public 

safety personnel, appropriate staffing levels are always a concern. 

The authors of Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

explore how campus public safety department staffing levels are actually determined, what 

agencies are able to achieve with the number of staff available to them, what challenges they 

face in this respect, and also explore whether there is any potential for developing a means of 

determining appropriate staffing levels for campus public safety. Most importantly to the safety 

of the students, staff, and faculty of our institutions, this report looks at staffing needs as related 

to the execution or maintenance of a community oriented policing mission—a major issue in 

today’s tight economic times where many Chiefs and Directors are expressing concern that their 

resources are already being stretched to the limit. 

Although there are many barriers to overcome, there is no debate that community oriented 

policing, when implemented properly on a college or university campus, promotes an environment 

of partnerships, prevention, and problem-solving. In this report the authors have sought to 

identify ways in which efficient resource allocation and effective work schedules can help campus 

public safety departments and their institutions establish appropriate staffing levels, and identify 

opportunities to engage in or expand community policing activities on campus.

Safety on our college and university campuses is a pressing need and implementing a community 

policing approach is vital to ensuring the success of this mission. I know you will find valuable 

information and useful ideas in this report, and encourage you to use them to positively impact 

your institutions.

Sincerely

Bernard K. Melekian, Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

IACLEA Mission Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

What We Know About Staffing for Campus Public Safety Departments (CPSD) . . . . . . . 7

How Institution Characteristics Affect Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Community Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Physical Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Which Institutional Characteristics Are Most Closely Related to CPSD Staffing? . . . . . 11

How CPSD Characteristics Affect Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

How Community Oriented Policing Programs Might Affect Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Community Policing in a Campus Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Factors that Inhibit CPSD Community Oriented Policing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Geographic Assignment of Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Other Factors Impacting on Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Current Approaches to Determining Staffing for Campus 

Public Safety Departments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Benchmarking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Staffing Formulae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Workload Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Defining ‘Appropriate’ Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Summary of Factors Affecting CPSD Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Considerations in Determining Appropriate Staffing Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Understanding the Principles of Resource Allocation and Work Scheduling . . . . . . . . 26

Considerations in Managing and Maintaining Appropriate Staffing Levels . . . . . . . . . 31

Why Is Workload Analysis not More Widely Used? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Is There Potential to Develop a Resource Toolkit to Determine Appropriate 

Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

What Is Currently Available to Assist CPSDs in Establishing Appropriate 

Staffing Levels? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

What Are the Difficulties CPSDs Face in Utilizing These Products and Services? . . . 35

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

About the COPS Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

1

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

3

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Preface

Community Oriented Policing Benefits on College Campuses

There is little doubt that a community oriented policing focus can have significant benefits 

when implemented on a college or university campus. College campuses are traditionally open 

environments where a culture of inquiry and discourse is fostered. The definition of community 

oriented policing states, 

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which 

support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to 

proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues 

such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.1

Highlights of this definition include “partnerships” and “problem-solving techniques,” which are 

valued on college campuses. A 2008 report by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS), supports the premise that campus public safety agencies value community oriented 

policing and community relations skills in the officers they hire. The report, based on a 2004–2005 

survey of campus law enforcement agencies, found that about two-thirds (69 percent) of campus 

law enforcement agencies had incorporated community policing into their campus security policy. 

“Most agencies (59 percent) assigned patrol officers to specific geographic areas on campus,” the 

report stated. “About half had upgraded technology to support community policing efforts (51 

percent) and collaborated with citizen groups, using their feedback to support community policing 

strategies (47 percent).”2

Moreover, the BJS report also found that more than 80 percent of campus law enforcement 

agencies met regularly with faculty, staff, and student groups. “Regular meetings with various 

groups played an important role in campus community policing efforts,” the report stated (page 

7). Among the groups campus law enforcement agencies met with were other law enforcement 

agencies (88 percent), and on- and off-campus groups and organizations, such as student 

housing groups (86 percent), faculty/staff organizations (84 percent), and student organizations 

(83 percent).3 The report also indicates that campus police were more likely than local police 

agencies to assess recruits’ community-relations skills prior to hiring. “This included assessments 

of analytical problem-solving skills (58 percent versus 37 percent), understanding of cultural 

diversity (57 percent versus 16 percent), and assessment of skills related to mediation and conflict 

management (42 percent versus 11 percent).”4

1 . Community Policing Defined. 2012 . Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U .S . Department of 

Justice, http://ric-zai-inc .com/ric .php?page=detail&id=COPS-P157.

2 . Reaves, Brian A . 2008 . Campus Law Enforcement 2004-05, Special Report, U .S . Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 219374, p . 7 .

3 . Reaves, Brian A . 2008 . Campus Law Enforcement 2004-05, Special Report, U .S . Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 219374, p . 7 .

4 . Ibid ., 9 .
4

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Community oriented policing, by definition, involves outreach and engagement with students 

on a college campus. The BJS report found that a majority of campus public safety agencies 

had designated personnel to address specific crime-related issues. For example, about 7 in 10 

agencies had designated personnel for self-defense training programs (69 percent), “while a similar 

proportion offered drug (73 percent), and alcohol (67 percent) education programs. About 6 in 

10 agencies had personnel to deal with victim assistance (62 percent), and stalking (60 percent). 

More than half had designated personnel to address cybercrime (54 percent) and hate crime (51 

percent).”5

Engagement with students was further advanced by the finding that nearly all students at fouryear institutions with 2,500 or more students had access to crime prevention programs. “Nearly 9 

in 10 students were enrolled on a campus where campus law enforcement provided general crime 

prevention and rape prevention programs,” according to the report. “Forty percent of students 

were enrolled on a campus with a full-time dedicated crime prevention unit.”6

There are barriers to implementing and supporting community oriented policing on college 

campuses, which will be discussed in this report. However, there is no disputing that community 

oriented policing, when implemented properly on a college campus, fosters an environment of 

partnerships, prevention, and problem-solving.

5. Ibid.

6. Reaves, Brian A. 2008. Campus Law Enforcement 2004-05, Special Report, U.S. Department of Justice, O

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 219374, p. 
5

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Introduction

IACLEA Mission Statement

The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) advances 

public safety for educational institutions by providing educational resources, advocacy, and 

professional development for Campus Public Safety Departments (CPSD). 

Background 

Although a number of studies of CPSDs have been undertaken,7 8 9 the latest in 2004–2005, 

these studies focused primarily on four-year universities with 2,500 or more students. Four-year 

institutions represent approximately 60 percent of all degree granting institutions. The studies 

examined CPSD staffing in relation to a range of CPSD and institution characteristics; the use of 

sworn versus non-sworn officers, armed versus non-armed officers, student officer ratios, use of 

pre-employment screening, rates of reported crime, average campus size, etc. The most recent 

study found a high percentage of CPSD involvement in community policing activities.

IACLEA’s experience was that community policing activities were less widely undertaken by its 

member institutions than was suggested by the 2004–2005 survey of four-year institutions. 

IACLEA had a more diverse membership, ranging from small institutions with fewer than 500 

students to the largest universities and colleges with over 15,000 students, and from small CPSDs 

with fewer than 10 staff to those with over 200. IACLEA was aware that many CPSDs reported 

that they were struggling to provide the level of service they wished to and were unable, because 

of inadequate staffing levels, to fully engage in community policing. It was possible, therefore, that 

the difference in community policing involvement lay in the staffing differences between smaller 

institutions and four-year institutions.

IACLEA was aware of a number of issues surrounding CPSD staffing. Some institutions 

determined their CPSD staffing levels by different and often unclear means, and salary levels 

differed and affected both recruitment and retention. CPSDs also found it difficult to evidence 

their perceived need for a particular level of staffing.

The purpose of this report is therefore to explore how CPSD staffing levels are actually determined, 

what agencies are able to achieve with the number of staff available to them, what challenges 

they face in this respect, and to explore whether there is any potential for developing a means of 

determining appropriate staffing levels for CPSDs. Most importantly, this report looks at staffing 

needs as related to the implementation or maintenance of a community oriented policing mission.

7. Reaves, Brian A., and Andrew L. Goldberg. 1996. Campus Law Enforcement Agencies: The 1994-95 S

Report. U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 161137. www.b

8. Bromley, Max L., and Brian A. Reaves. 1998. Comparing Campus and Municipal Police: The Human Res

Dimension. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 21 (3): 534–54

9. Reaves, Brian A. 2008. Campus Law Enforcement 2004-05, Special Report, U.S. Department of Justice, O

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 219374
6

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Table 1. IACLEA membership by type of institution and student enrollment

Student Enrollment Public Private Community Schools Total

<1999 84 186 14 11 295

<4999 126 137 30 293

<9999 119 38 36 193

<19999 120 29 25 174

<20000 91 12 18 121

Not Known 59 11 70

Total 599 402 134 11 1,146

Source: IACLEA

Survey Methodology 

The literature relating to law enforcement staffing for campuses was found to be particularly 

sparse. Reliance, therefore, was placed on conducting a survey of CPSDs to identify relevant issues 

and current practices in relation to staffing.

The survey instrument was based on a total of four focus group meetings held in 2009 and 

hosted by the American University Department of Public Safety, Washington, D.C. A request for 

participants was circulated to IACLEA members. Eight participants attended, from both urban 

and rural institutions, representing Chiefs/Directors and administrators from public universities, 

private universities, and community colleges.

Chief/Director members of IACLEA were subsequently contacted by IACLEA via email and invited 

to complete the survey, which was administered using a web-based survey tool. As shown in 

Table 1, the 1,146 U.S. members of IACLEA represent a broad cross section of U.S. institutions. A 

summary of survey questions and responses is available from IACLEA.

The Department of Education provided IACLEA with contact details of a further 5,663 

educational institutions. Of a total of 6,809 institutions approximately 4,40010 were accredited 

degree-granting institutions, which were likely to have a CPSD.

A total of 456 responses were received, excluding those from institutions with no CPSD, providing 

a response rate of 10.4 percent of accredited degree-granting institutions. These represented a 

reasonable cross section of institutions; 33.8 percent of responses were from public universities, 

34.8 percent from private universities, 22.1 percent from community colleges, and the remainder 

was comprised of proprietary schools.

Unless otherwise stated, all tables and statistics quoted in this document relate to the findings of 

this survey.

10. Snyder, Thomas D., and Sally A. Dillow. 2009. “Table 266.” In Digest of Education Statistics, National C

for Education Statistics
7

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

What We Know About Staffing for Campus Public Safety 

Departments (CPSD)

How Institution Characteristics Affect Staffing

Type of institution. Whether the educational institution in question is a university or 

college, the type of community it serves and its physical features might be expected to be 

major determinants of its public safety requirements and, hence, the size of its CPSD. Similar 

institutions with similar student numbers might be expected to have similar sized CPSDs. This, 

however, is not the case. Staffing levels vary considerably and do not appear to be determined 

by any single factor. Although there are a number of suggested ways in which staffing levels 

can be determined, there is little in the way of empirical research that would establish what the 

ideal number of staff would be, given certain institution variables. Neither could we find any 

authoritative or generally accepted guidelines regarding staffing levels for CPSDs. So how do 

institutions determine the size of their CPSD?

Community Variables 

Student population is a major determinant of many institutions’ service requirements; the 

larger the student body, the greater the requirement for classrooms, faculty and staff, food 

services, residence halls, library facilities, etc. Faculty numbers, for example, are intrinsically linked 

to student numbers through the widespread use of the “Student-to-Faculty Ratio,” which seeks 

to give an indication, albeit perhaps tenuous, of an institution’s quality of teaching, based on the 

relative numbers of faculty to students. 

There is no similar “Student-to-CPSD Staff Ratio” that is generally accepted, despite the natural 

presumption that the greater the student numbers, the greater the demand for policing services. 

The relationship between the two is similarly tenuous and perhaps even more difficult to measure. 

Unlike faculty, student contact with their CPSD is less structured, often occurring due to outside 

influences, such as being a victim of crime. 

Although a number of institutions have based their CPSD staffing on a self determined studentto-officer ratio, there is no general correlation between student numbers and CPSD staffing levels, 

other than a general average increase in both overall CPSD staffing levels and officer numbers as 

student population increases. 
8

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Table 2. Average staffing levels and student enrollment

Average number of CPSD employees Average number of officers

Student 

Enrollment

Community 

College

Private 

University

Public 

University

Community 

College

Private 

University

Public 

University

less than 500 4.0 3.8 4.0 2.0 3.0 8.0

500 – 2499 2.7 16.6 25.3 2.2 10.5 22.2

2500 – 4999 7.5 21.4 28.0 5.9 16.3 22.1

5000 – 9999 17.2 35.3 22.1 16.1 29.1 16.9

10000 – 14999 22.2 60.5 30.4 16.6 49.0 23.6

15000 or more 31.7 80.8 72.5 26.7 55.8 53.0

This reflects the trend found in a Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report,11 which reported 

that average CPSD staffing numbers increase with increased student numbers for four-year 

universities and colleges. However, these averaged numbers can be misleading as similar 

institutions with similar student enrollments can have widely differing CPSD staffing profiles. 

Noticeable differences, as shown in Table 2, were found when the ratio of students-to-CPSD staff 

was examined on an institutional basis, with both public and private universities faring better 

than community colleges. Survey responses for institutions with 15,000 or more students showed 

staffing levels that varied between 4 and 120 in community colleges, between 10 and 195 in public 

universities, and between 2 and 290 in private universities.

The age and gender profiles of a student body are likely to influence both the volume and the 

nature of demands for policing services. For example, one institution in New York State with a 60 

percent male student population consistently found over a number of years that approximately 80 

percent of campus offenders and 90 percent of arrestees were male.12 These figures reflect trends 

in the general population of the United States, where males represent the greater proportion 

(75.8 percent) of arrestees.13 By comparison, an institution in Los Angeles where 97 percent of 

2,480 students were women had no arrests and only a few instances that were referred for campus 

disciplinary action.14

Student experience of being a victim of crime may also differ from that of the general population. 

A Department of Justice study of violent crime on college campuses15 indicated that college 

students were less likely to be victims of violent crime (68 violent victimizations per 1,000 

11. Reaves, Brian A. 2008. Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05, Special Report. Table 2. U.S. Department of Ju

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 219374, p. 

12. Sammons, G. 2008. Do You Need More Officers? Campus Law Enforcement Journal 38 (2):22

13. Crime in the United States, 2007: Persons Arrested. Federal Bureau of Investigations, U.S. Department

Justice, www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.h

14. Annual Security Report. 2008. Mount St. Mary College, Los Angeles. P

www.msmc.la.edu/Include/campussafety/2008-annual-report-chalon

15. Baum, K., Klaus, P. 2005. Violent Victimization of College Students, 1995-2002, Special Report. U.S. Depa

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 206836
9

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

students 18 to 24 years old) than were non-students of the same age (82 violent victimizations 

per 1,000 non-students aged 18 to 24 years old). Of the approximately 7.7 million U.S. college 

students aged 18 to 24, approximately 8 percent experienced violent crimes (rape, robbery, 

aggravated assault, and simple assault) each year. Most incidents occurred off campus; among 

students living in student housing, about 85 percent of violent victimizations occurred off 

campus, compared to 95 percent for students living off campus. 

The study also found that female college students were less likely to be victims of violent crime 

than either male students or similarly aged women in the general population. On average there 

were 47 violent crimes per 1,000 female students vs. 91 violent crimes per 1,000 for male students 

and 78 per 1,000 for similarly aged women in the general population. 

Physical Variables 

Focus group discussions identified a number of variables that would impact staffing.

The location and physical security requirements of an institution can directly influence 

the demands on policing services. An open campus in an urban environment where the general 

population has ready access to the streets in and around the campus is likely to present greater 

security and safety challenges than, for example, a gated campus in a rural environment. 

The staffing required to provide physical security for buildings will be influenced by the number 

and nature (e.g., laboratories, auditoriums, or libraries) of buildings on campus, whether the CPSD 

is also responsible for the security of buildings located off campus, and whether the institution has 

invested in building security technology, such as automatic door locks, CCTV, etc. This technology 

reduces the need for security patrols and the manual locking and unlocking of buildings. CPSDs 

face a particular challenge in this respect; target hardening of campuses is controversial as, by their 

nature, campuses are open environments. 

Many faculty members, administrators, and students oppose a restricted 

environment and criticize security restrictions as an imposition on personal 

freedom.16

Target hardening is a term chiefly used by police officers and those working in security, which 

refers to the strengthening of the security of a building in order to reduce or minimize the risk of 

damage or burglary. It is believed that a strong, visible defense will deter or delay an attack.

16 . Greenberg, Sheldon . 2005 . National Summit on Campus Public Safety: Strategies for Colleges and Universities 

in a Homeland Security Environment . U .S . Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

NCJ 210917, p . 41 .
10

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Table 3. Average CPSD staffing variables to number of buildings

# of On-Campus Buildings

<10

Average # of CPSD Staff

18

Average # of CPSD Officers

13

10 – 50 21 16

51 – 75 28 22

76 – 100 32 24

>100 76 62

The number of buildings both on and off campus could be expected to influence CPSD 

staffing. The majority of CPSDs have the responsibility for locking and unlocking buildings, 

conducting nighttime building checks, and for providing unlock service to students and staff 

who are locked out of their rooms, a request which survey responses indicated to be a routine 

occurrence. While the average number of CPSD employees increases in line with the number 

of buildings on campus, as shown in Table 3, there are wide variations among institutions with 

similar campuses.

The provision and extent of on-campus student housing will influence the need for 24/7 

policing coverage and require a range of CPSD services, such as room access, that would not be 

required if all students lived off-campus. The majority (78 percent) of CPSDs who do not provide 

24/7 coverage have no on-campus student housing. However, private student accommodation in 

the proximity of the campus can also influence staffing requirements. Many CPSDs provide patrols 

in areas of concentrated student accommodation in the vicinity of the campus, and will respond to 

off-campus incidents involving students when requested by a local law enforcement agency.

Specific days and times of day when classes are in session, particularly classes scheduled 

during the evening or weekend, will impact the CPSD workload. While over 90 percent of 

institutions hold evening classes during the week, 60 percent also hold classes during the day on 

weekends and 20 percent hold classes during the evening on weekends. The hours of operation of 

campus facilities, such as libraries and cafeterias, are also likely to have an impact and are liable to 

be reflected in the high number of CPSDs (78 percent) who provide walk-home escort services.

Campus size should be an important consideration. In general, the greater the acreage covered, 

the longer the response time for CPSD officers to answer calls for service. It will also take longer 

or require more officers to patrol larger campuses. As with the relationship between CPSD staffing 

and student population, the relationship between CPSD staffing and the size of the campus varies 

considerably. While 28 percent of campuses that exceed 1,000 acres in size will have fewer than 20 

CPSD staff, 27 percent of those with less than 100 acres will have more than 20 CPSD staff.

Institution’s expectations of their CPSDs performance might also have a strong influence 

on staffing numbers. In addition to providing a number of services, there is an expectation 

that officers will respond quickly to calls for service. In the case of urgent calls, the majority 

(70 percent) of respondent institutions have an expectation that officers will respond in 

less than three minutes, despite some institutions having very large campuses and small 

CPSDs, which makes the likelihood of them consistently achieving such a response time 

extremely remote. 
11

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Table 4. The correlation between total CPSD staffing numbers and other institution variables

Correlation Coefficient*

Total Institution staff 0.683

Number of faculty members 0.665

Total student enrollment 0.587

Number on-campus buildings responsible for 0.578

Number of off-site campus buildings responsible for 0.316

Size of campus (acreage) 0.315

Percentage undergraduates 0.28

Number of sworn officers 0.264

Percentage international undergraduates 0.24

Number of campus sites 0.222

Percentage male undergraduates 0.12

Percentage students live on campus 0.108

Number of non-sworn 0.064

* A correlation coefficient measures the degree to which two variables are linearly related. A perfect linear relationship with positive 

slope between the two variables would produce a correlation coefficient of 1. A correlation coefficient of 0 would mean there is no 

linear relationship between the two variables.

A lack of appreciation for what CPSDs are capable of achieving is also suggested by the extent to 

which some Chiefs/Directors are involved in decisions that impact directly on their workload. 

While just over 50 percent of institutions actively involve their CPSDs in decisions that may affect 

their staffing requirements, such as a planned increase in student population or the addition 

of new facilities, some CPSDs are only advised after such decisions have been made. Some (20 

percent) are neither consulted nor advised of changes. 

After they decide, I bring up the realities of their decisions. We then put a band-aid 

on a broken arm and continue on.17

Which Institutional Characteristics Are Most Closely 

Related to CPSD Staffing?

Statistical analysis of the correlation between CPSD staffing numbers and other institution 

variables (as seen in Table 4) suggested that total institution staffing levels, number of faculty 

members, total student enrollment, and the number of on-campus buildings were more strongly 

correlated with CPSD staffing levels than were other variables such as campus size. 

17. Survey responden
12

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Table 5: Ratio of CPSD staffing to other institution employees

CPSD

Total CPSD Staff

Ratio

1.00

# of Faculty

16

# Institution Employees

47

Number of Officers 1.00 19 58

Number of Civilian Employees

Student Employees

1.00

1.00

107

64

323

193

A multiple regression was also undertaken but demonstrated negligible predictive power. The 

closest relationships were those relating to other institution employees. Table 5 shows the ratio 

of CPSD staff members to faculty and other institution employees. However, as with student and 

building numbers, wide variations in staffing levels were found between institutions.

How CPSD Characteristics Affect Staffing

Institutions structure their policing and security arrangements in different ways. A 

2005 report, National Summit on Campus Public Safety: Strategies for Colleges and Universities in a 

Homeland Security Environment, found that police and security operations in some of the largest 

colleges and systems are highly fragmented: 

A large university system may have multiple, independent police and security 

operations, each with its own chief of police or director, staffing patterns, training, 

policies and procedures, and contractual services. One state university system, 

for example, has three campuses located within a 45-minute radius. It maintains 

three police departments, each reporting to a separate chief of police who, in turn, 

reports to a separate academic administrator.18

The composition of CPSDs varies considerably. Some employ all sworn officers (26 percent), some 

all non-sworn officers (36 percent), or a mix of sworn and non-sworn (37 percent). Approximately 

half of CPSDs will arm their officers.

18 . Greenberg, Sheldon . 2005 . National Summit on Campus Public Safety: Strategies for Colleges and Universities 

in a Homeland Security Environment . U .S . Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

NCJ 210917, p 41 .
13

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Roles and Responsibilities of CPSDs differ widely. However, the majority of departments will 

provide the following services:

Building Security

Building lockup/unlock

Access control

Room lock outs

Key control

Central alarm monitoring

Surveillance camera monitoring

Communication Functions

Call intake (including 911)

Dispatching calls for service

CCTV monitoring

Crime Investigation

Property Crime

Violent Crime

Drug related issues

Cybercrime

A relatively small number of institutions have CPSDs with their own Detective or Crime 

Prevention Units and fewer still have specialized units, such as SWAT Teams. 

CPSDs will, in some instances, undertake work unrelated to their primary role, such as campus 

telephone switchboard functions and transportation services. The use of officers in administrative 

roles is considerable; half of all staff taking on such duties are officers, which raises some 

interesting questions as to how roles and responsibilities within CPSDs are determined. One 

quarter of communication roles are also undertaken by officers.

In addition to deploying officers on campus patrol duties, many campus agencies have extended 

jurisdictions that allow them to patrol areas adjacent to their campus, working with or on behalf 

of a local law enforcement agency. The University of Maryland is a good example. In 2003, the 

University and Prince George’s County established a concurrent jurisdiction providing additional 

police officers and improved communications between their respective police agencies to enhance 

safety and security in the area near the campus in College Park. The success of that collaboration 

led to an expansion of that jurisdiction in 2008 to cover new student housing. Some CPSDs also 

provide services to the non-student communities adjacent to the campus as a means of fostering 

good relations and averting potential conflicts.

Public Safety

Fire prevention education

Fire inspections

Emergency Medical Services

Alcohol awareness education

Sexual assault prevention education

Theft prevention education

Special Security

Special events

Social functions

Stadium events

Visiting high profile speakers

Crowd control (parades, rallies, etc.)
14

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Security personnel are utilized by a large percentage of institutions, in addition to their CPSD 

staff. In some cases they are employed directly by the institution, but more frequently by a 

security company contracted by the institution. They are likely to take on duties similar to CPSD 

staff, provide cover for absent CPSD staff, and supplement CPSD staff at special events, functions, 

or sporting events, when staffing requirements exceed CPSD’s resources. Only a relatively small 

percentage of institutions employ security personnel to provide services not already provided by 

their CPSD. 

Student employees are frequently used to supplement CPSD staffing levels. Excluding 

institutions with fewer than 500 students (only 5 percent of these employ students), slightly 

over half (58 percent) of CPSDs employ students. Students will, on average, constitute 27 percent 

of the CPSDs total staffing complement. While the majority of CPSDs consider students a 

useful, but not essential, supplement to their department’s staffing, 31 percent would consider 

it difficult to fulfil all their responsibilities without them and an additional 14 percent would 

consider it impossible.

Recruitment and retention of staff is a problem for many CPSDs. Slightly under half 

(43 percent) have difficulty recruiting staff and attribute this to the salary offered and 

competition from local law enforcement agencies. The two are likely to be closely linked, as 

CPSD pay is consistently found to be less than what is offered by adjacent police departments.

The Tampa Police Department offers entry level officers $44,000...rising to 

$48,000 after 5 years. By comparison, the University Police pay $35,000 to starting 

officers with no increase for longevity.19

In some ways the screening of potential recruits may also inhibit recruiting, as CPSD screening 

is becoming more stringent than that of local law enforcement agencies. Many have recognized 

that a move to community oriented policing requires a change in staffing assumptions, training, 

and practices.

A change in education and training requirements and...the shift of emphasis from 

legalistic to workmanship accountability.20

Many now assess applicants’ community relations skills as they search for officers who can 

effectively implement community policing strategies.21 This includes their problem-solving 

ability (58 percent for campus agencies versus 37 percent for local law enforcement agencies), 

understanding of cultural diversity (57 percent versus 16 percent), and conflict management 

skills (42 percent versus 11 percent). 

19 . Assessment of Campus Security for University of South Florida, Hallcrest Systems Inc ., 2007 . 

20 . Bittner, E . 1990 . Some Reflections on Staffing Problem-Oriented Policing . American Journal of Policing 9(3): 

189–196 .

21 . Reaves, Brian A . 2008 . Trends in Campus Policing: A Comparison of the 1994-95 and 2004-05 . BJS Surveys . 

Campus Law Enforcement Journal 38 (3): 31–36 .
15

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Table 6. Percentage of CPSDs who have difficulty recruiting and/or retaining staff

% of CPSDs

45%

Recruiting Staff

NO

Retaining Staff

NO

12% NO YES

18% YES NO

25% YES YES

As seen in Table 6, retention of staff can also be a problem. A total of 43 percent of departments 

have difficulty recruiting staff while 37 percent experience retention problems. 

Departments with all sworn officers (41 percent) or a mix of sworn and non-sworn officers 

(45 percent) are more likely than those with only non-sworn officers (35 percent) to report 

competition from local law enforcement agencies as one of the main reasons for their retention 

difficulties. Sworn officers in particular are attractive recruits for other law enforcement agencies, 

as in many cases the local agency will not have to bear any training costs for the officer to be 

certified by the jurisdiction. It is entirely possible that for some institutions, the costs associated 

with a high turnover of staff are not dissimilar to the pay differential between their CPSD staff 

and that of local law enforcement officers.

Minimum educational qualifications for recruits vary. Only 13 percent of departments require a 

two- or four-year degree, a further 15 percent require some college education, whereas 72 percent 

require no college education. Surprisingly perhaps, those departments that do not require 

recruits to have a college education are only slightly less likely to have recruitment problems 

compared to other departments (46 percent as compared to 51 percent) and are equally likely to 

have retention problems. 

Benefits such as tuition (paid or reimbursed) do not appear to offer sufficient compensation for 

the lower salaries offered by some CPSDs. Those departments that are more likely to offer such 

benefits are also more likely to have recruitment and/or retention problems. Eighty-nine percent 

of departments with such difficulties offer these type of benefits compared to 67 percent of those 

who have no difficulties. 
16

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

How Community Oriented Policing Programs Might 

Affect Staffing

Community Policing in a Campus Setting

Community Policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which 

support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to 

proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues 

such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.22

The concept of community policing represents a significant shift away from a reactive, call-driven 

approach to the deployment of officers toward a more proactive engagement with the community 

to resolve public safety issues. This problem-solving aspect of community policing is particularly 

appropriate in a campus setting.

Problem-solving policing blends well with the environment and expectations of 

colleges and universities by reflecting their educational and research goals and 

methods. Professors observe, inquire, link similar facts, theorize (ask questions and 

pose possible answers), and solve unknowns. Problem-solving policing, to a lesser 

extent, incorporates the research method into police work...By combining resources 

and staff, campus police can further integrate into the campus community.23

Many CPSDs embraced the concept of community policing at an early stage in their development. 

However, this style of policing presents a number of staffing challenges for them. 

Factors that Inhibit CPSD Community Oriented Policing Programs

Agencies have to devote the necessary human and financial resources to support 

community policing to ensure that problem-solving efforts are robust and that 

partnerships are sustained and effective.24

Many CPSDs do not believe they have the resources to fully engage in community policing. While 

the majority (57 percent) of departments surveyed would wish to increase the range of community 

policing activities they undertook, they saw their current staffing levels as an inhibiting factor 

(see Table 7). This was not restricted to particular types of institutions or those departments 

with a lower than average ratio of staff to students, although as student numbers rose so did the 

percentage of CPSDs who believed they had insufficient resources.

22. Community Policing Defined. 2012. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department

Justice, http://ric-zai-inc.com/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-P1

23. Riseling, S. 1995. Problem-Solving Policing at The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Community Polici

On Campus, 75–84. IACLEA Monograp

24. Community Policing Defined. 2012. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department

Justice, http://ric-zai-inc.com/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-P1
17

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Table 7. Percentage of CPSDs who believe they have insufficient staff to undertake the range of Community 

Policing Activities they would wish by student enrollment

<10 Staff <20 Staff <30 Staff <40 Staff <50 Staff <75 Staff <100 Staff >100 Staff

Student Enrollment

<500 33 33 50 — 50 — — —

500 – 2499 49 53 38 0 100 0 — 14

2500 – 4499 53 54 33 25 75 100 50 0

5000 – 9999 42 61 62 35 0 25 50 —

10000 – 14999 75 54 62 64 20 0 100 0

>15000 63 91 50 56 67 25 11 —

Overall 48 58 51 42 50 23 29 9

The survey found that 33 percent of CPSDs with fewer than 10 staff will undertake no community 

policing activities at all and 50 percent will only achieve between 1 and 5 of the activities surveyed. 

The percentage of departments undertaking no community policing activities falls to 6 percent for 

departments with between 10 and 20 staff, although again 50 percent will only achieve between 1 

and 5 activities. Once staffing levels rise above 30 staff members, activities increase considerably, 

with over 50 percent of departments undertaking between 7 and 10 activities. This increases to 70 

percent for departments with over 50 staff. 

Figure 1 on page 18 details the most prevalent Community Policing Activities engaged in by 

CPSDs. Those activities most frequently executed were concerned with student safety—in 

particular, walk home escorts and safety awareness/crime prevention programs. These were 

undertaken by over 60 percent of departments.

Understandably, smaller departments are less likely to be in a position to have officers 

dedicated exclusively to this function. Figure 2 on page 18 shows how the likelihood increases 

commensurate with increased numbers of CPSD staff.
18

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Figure 1. Percentage of CPSDs undertaking specific Community Policing Activities

Environmental crime analysis

Ride along programs

Problem solving projects

Property marking

First year orientation programs

Geographic patrol areas

Sexual assault prevention

Crime prevention programs

Safety awareness programs

Walk home escorts

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

%

Figure 2. Percentage of CPSDs having staff dedicated to COP Activities

<10

<20

<30

<40

<50

<75

<100

>100

0

Total CPSD Staff

10 20 30 40 50 60 70

%

Geographic Assignment of Officers

With community policing, there is a shift to the long-term assignment of Officers 

to specific neighborhoods or areas.25

The successful implementation of such specific deployments in a campus setting relies heavily on 

the ability of the department to make officers available at appropriate times to meet the needs 

of their community—appropriate being defined by the institution’s community rather than 

the department. In CPSDs that were able to assign officers to geographic patrol areas, survey 

25. Community Policing Defined. 2012. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Departmen

Justice. Page 7. http://ric-zai-inc.com/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-
19

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

responses indicated that officers were consistently found to be more likely to engage with other 

internal and external groups. This is of clear benefit in terms of improving communications, 

encouraging cooperation, and facilitating the better integration of officers into the campus 

community, as opposed to the view that

The culture that policing is viewed negatively in an academic society.26

Those CPSDs who employed geographic patrol areas were also likely to devote more of their 

officers’ time to other community policing activities; 31 percent were able to devote over one 

quarter of their officers’ time compared to 12 percent of those who did not employ geographic 

patrol areas (see Table 8 on page 20). Only a small number (6 percent) of CPSDs employed 

geographic patrol areas but did not undertake community policing activities. 

CPSD officers engaging in community policing activities within an academic community will 

require a particular skill set to be successful, given the community with which they are interacting 

will be faculty, students, and other staff. They need to have good communication and decisionmaking skills and be able to take responsibility for their actions. However, recruiting the right 

caliber of officer will be a challenge for many institutions, given their already established 

difficulties with recruiting as well as the level of academic attainment required of applicants.

In the absence of sufficient resources, chiefs/directors may decide it is better not to attempt such 

projects, rather than to raise community expectations, only to disappoint them. It is, therefore, 

perhaps not surprising that less than one-quarter of CPSDs with fewer than 10 staff members 

assign officers to geographic patrol areas, yet one-half of departments with between 10 and 

20 staff members are able to do so. As department size increases, so does the percentage of 

departments able to assign officers to such roles. 

Despite the clear appreciation shown by CPSDs of the philosophy of community policing, 

their ability to engage and expand such activities is ultimately determined by the availability of 

resources to sustain them and, in this respect, CPSDs are no different from even the largest city 

police departments.

CAPS (Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy) must prove its mettle in the face of 

declining city revenues and federal support for police hiring....city revenues have 

begun to shrink dramatically and federal support for police hiring has slowed. 

Ultimately, budgets provide the bottom-line measure of a city’s commitment to 

community policing; in that respect, Chicago is no different from other cities.27

26. Survey respons

27. Skogan, W.G., L. Steiner, J. DuBois, J. E. Gudell, A. Fagan. 2008. Taking Stock: Community Policing in

Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, NCJ 189909
20

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Table 8. Percentage of CPSD whose officers meet regularly with other groups

Departments with 

Geographic Patrol Areas

Departments without 

Geographic Patrol Areas

Internal Groups

Administrators 56% 42%

Health Department 27% 8%

Legal Department 15% 3%

Maintenance 75% 59%

Faculty 71% 54%

Staff 81% 64%

Student Groups 68% 42%

Student Government 43% 19%

International Students 34% 12%

Resident Life 69% 47%

Fraternities 32% 9%

Sororities 32% 9%

Social Services 27% 8%

Hospital Administrators 6% 1%

External Groups

Local law enforcement agencies 85% 68%

Federal law enforcement agencies 21% 10%

Community Organizations 31% 13%

Business Organizations 15% 6%

Social Services 18% 8%

Other Factors Impacting on Staffing

CPSDs tend to experience considerable variations in workload. Peak service demand times will 

occur during semesters, particularly if students are resident on campus. Outside of semesters, the 

student population will drop significantly and special events or sporting events are less likely to 

occur. Although some institutions do run “summer camps” or conferences during these periods, 

the workload of many is reduced significantly. While this may offer an opportunity to catch up 

on training, vacations, etc., there is potential for a degree of overstaffing to occur during these 

periods. Alternately, institutions may prefer to keep staffing levels at less than the optimum and 

rely on overtime or other security personnel to manage busy periods.
21

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Employment laws, such as The Fair Labor Standards Act,28 can affect CPSDs in managing their 

workload. The relevant provision of this law requires that hours worked in excess of 40 in any 

week be paid at time and a half. Rotating schedules that offer coverage 24/7, although they will 

average 40 hours per week, will often have some weeks where more than 40 hours are worked and 

some weeks where less than 40 hours are worked. For some institutions, this means that their 

schedules will automatically incur additional payments to officers, with a potentially significant 

impact on the department’s budget. Some have been able to restructure their schedules in order to 

avoid these additional payments, but many are still hampered by it. 

Changing the work schedule to a 40-hour workweek and thereby eliminating 

statutory overtime payments played a major part in bringing our department 

within budget.29

These restrictions, although intended to benefit workers, can also have a negative impact. They 

can make schedules less flexible and therefore less likely to match demand. It is also likely that this 

lack of flexibility will make the schedule less attractive for staff in terms of what may be described 

as “quality” time off.

Current Approaches to Determining Staffing for Campus 

Public Safety Departments

The majority of CPSDs have little or no control over their staffing levels in that, in 60 percent of 

cases, this is determined solely (24.8 percent) or mainly (35.2 percent) by budget considerations. 

For community colleges and public universities the rate is slightly higher at 65 percent and for 

private universities it is slightly lower at 53 percent. When budget is not the major determinant, 

the main drivers in determining staffing levels are workload analysis, benchmarking with similar 

institutions, and self determined formulae based on student population.

Benchmarking 

Benchmarking is used by approximately 7 percent of CPSDs to help them determine their 

staffing levels. Benchmarking is normally used as a means of comparing the practices and 

outcomes of an organization with similar organizations in order to identify best practices and 

areas for improvement. Here it is used to compare the allocation of staff in institutions with 

similar characteristics. 

28. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as Amended. U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Divis

Publication 1318. 200

29. CPSD Business Manage
22

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Identifying “similar” institutions can be a difficult task depending upon the variables one chooses 

to examine. These are likely to include total student enrollment, the number of resident students, 

and urban or rural location. However, as suggested by Sammons,30 they might also include the 

proportion of male to female students, and commuters who will be on campus during the business 

day, as well as departmental structure—i.e., sworn or non-sworn officers.

The greater the number of variables examined, the more difficult it is to find similar institutions. 

Benchmarking also suffers from the fact that, having completed the exercise, all it will show is 

whether one’s staffing levels are less than, comparable with, or exceed other similarly structured 

institutions. It will not determine the appropriateness of the staffing levels of any of the 

institutions examined. It is perhaps, therefore, of greatest use to CPSDs whose staffing level lags 

behind that of similar institutions as an argument for additional staff.

Staffing Formulae

Staffing formulae are used by less than 2 percent of CPSDs to determine their staffing levels. 

The simplest—and least appropriate—according to the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police,31 are based purely on a ratio of officers to population. Among those using formulae, ratios 

range from one officer per 1,000 students to 2.75 per 2,000 students. The actual ratio of officers 

to students in most universities is between 1.8 and 3 (full-time equivalent) officers per 1,000 

students.32

Other formulae are based on a predetermined minimum staffing level—i.e., the number of posts 

that need to be filled on a daily basis with adjustments to allow for vacation, sickness, etc. Some 

use more complex formulae, incorporating factors such as acreage, calls for service, and officer 

safety issues. However, the basis of most is difficult to establish.

Workload Analysis 

Workload analysis is widely accepted as a fundamental determinant of the staffing required for a 

police patrol function. 

An important element in building an effective staffing plan is having a detailed 

understanding of the underlying workload factors that impact staffing needs. 

A strong staffing plan will establish a connection between the various types 

and levels of workload and the staffing levels needed to meet performance 

expectations.33

30. Sammons, G. 2008. Do You Need More Officers? Campus Law Enforcement Journal 38 (2): 22

31. Patrol Staffing and Deployment Study: 2, International Association of Chiefs of Police, www.theiacp.

32. Reaves, Brian A. 2008. Campus Law Enforcement 2004-05, Special Report. U.S. Department of Justice, O

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 219374, p. 

33. DuBois, Liz. 2009. An Overview of Staffing Analysis. Journal of Local Government Auditors 22 3)  (Sprin

14–16
23

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Given that the majority of CPSDs will dedicate over 50 percent of their officers’ working time 

to patrol duties, it might seem surprising that only about 10 percent use workload analysis to 

determine their staffing levels. This is despite the fact that about 45 percent maintain records of 

workload, of which calls for service and time spent on patrol are the items most commonly recorded.

However, CPSD officers do not spend all of their working time on patrol related matters. 

Therefore, other elements of their workload would need to be factored-in to provide a meaningful 

prediction of required staffing levels. Survey responses show that most officers will spend up to 

a quarter of their time on report writing and administrative tasks. Other activities that would 

need to be considered include policing special events and sporting events, conducting crime 

investigation, undertaking community policing activities, etc. All will contribute to an officer’s 

workload. Although generally considered the most accurate, workload analysis is undoubtedly the 

most time consuming and complex method of assessing staffing requirements, particularly so 

when, unlike calls for service (the distribution of which will generally show a similar pattern from 

one week to the next) part of that workload is not predictable.

Defining ‘Appropriate’ Staffing

Adequate police protection, like beauty, lies in the eyes of the beholder. The optimal 

or appropriate ratio of troopers (or officers) to population, or traffic volume, 

reported crimes or accidents, etc., is not a matter of mathematics or statistics. It is 

a matter of human judgment and community resources.34

Schuiterman’s succinctly put analogy of how policing resources are actually determined sums up 

the conclusion ultimately reached by many involved in the allocation of policing resources. While 

police chiefs will have a view of the level of service that should be provided and the extent to which 

they should embrace a community policing philosophy, those responsible for providing the funds 

for such services may have a different view, and that view usually prevails.

Arlington voters defeated a proposal last month that was expected to raise enough 

sales tax money to pay for 48 additional officers and other crime prevention 

initiatives. (That many additional officers, including their equipment, would cost 

the city about $4 million.)35

34. Schuiterman, J. G. 1985. Allocating State Troopers: The Virginia Experience. The Police Chief 41 (

35. Schrock, S. 2007. Community defeats proposed police increase. Star-Telegr

www.star-telegram.com/arlington_news/story/368006ht
24

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Clearly there comes a point where the intended benefits to the community are outweighed by the 

resources the community is prepared to invest in realizing those benefits. Rarely, however, does 

the “community” have the opportunity to act as directly as they did in Arlington. In the case of 

colleges and universities, it falls to administrators to apportion funds based on their institutions’ 

priorities and available funding. Public Safety, as with all other departments in an institution, 

needs to be able to make a case for its share of the funds. 

Making that case falls to the chief or director of public safety. Ideally, they should be able to come 

to an agreement with their institution administrators on the services that should be provided 

in order to meet the institution’s requirements, and then be furnished with funds to match 

those requirements. The challenge, however, is how to quantify the actual or anticipated cost 

of the individual services that the CPSD is being asked to undertake, because that cost is not 

based entirely on the time required to provide each service. Unlike other departments in their 

institution, CPSDs have to consider some unique features of their staffing profile. For example, 

overnight calls for service may be very low and well within the capability of one officer to service; 

however, safety considerations and union pressures may determine that two or more officers 

should be on duty.

The fact many chiefs/directors express concern that their resources are stretched and 

administrators say that overtime costs are excessive, is testimony to the difficulties both face 

in determining what is an appropriate level of staffing. In the long run, while mathematics can 

help us determine the workload element of staffing for CPSDs, and professional judgment can 

determine the intangible elements (such as officer safety requirements), it is the resources that 

the institution is willing—or able in the case of smaller institutions—to invest that will ultimately 

determine staffing numbers. 

Problems are likely to occur when institutional expectations and the workload capacity of the 

CPSD are out of sync. The symptoms of expectation exceeding capability may include union 

problems, excessive overtime, staff retention problems, or high sickness levels, each a further 

drain on departmental staffing and budget and each only serving to compound the problem. 

The Campus Police continue to operate under an expired contract while a labor 

dispute, which centers around scheduling and staffing issues, is resolved...The 

issues in the dispute are ‘quality of life issues’ which revolve around the use of 

overtime, time off, and scheduling....The department has a ‘history of extensive 

overtime’ due to an apparently ‘insufficient staff to meet the needs of the 

community.’36

The ability to quantify what the department is capable of providing in terms of policing services 

becomes all the more important in such situations. If expectations cannot be met, they need 

to be managed. Ultimately, it may be a matter of deciding which services the department is 

no longer able to provide, or which new initiative it is not going to take up. Despite the wide 

acceptance among CPSDs of the benefits of community policing, because it is a proactive rather 

36. Dabek, F. 1999. Campus Police Labor Dispute with MIT Enters Second Year. The Tech 119(27) (Jun

http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N27/26cps.27n.
25

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

than a reactive activity, it is potentially vulnerable in such situations. As most community policing 

activities (75 percent) are initiated by CPSDs themselves rather than their institutions, it is 

perhaps the easiest for them to forgo, as evidenced by the fact that the most common reason given 

by survey respondents for not undertaking such activities is insufficient resources.

Being able to quantify what the department is capable of providing is an important aspect in 

managing institution expectations. Giving institution administrators accurate and well presented 

information regarding current workload, and the staffing required to meet this workload, should 

allow informed decisions to be made as to whether the department is appropriately staffed. 

Importantly, this exercise is also useful in identifying and potentially freeing up spare capacity 

that could be used for other valuable activities. The difficulty CPSD Chiefs/Directors face, 

however, is how to carry out the analytical process required to obtain that information.

Summary of Factors Affecting CPSD Staffing 

• Age and gender profile of the student body

• Number of students resident on campus 

• The number and security requirements of buildings on and off campus

• Size of the campus 

• Teaching hours

• Patrol boundaries and responsibilities 

• Use of separate security companies

• Recruitment and retention issues

• Composition of the department—i.e., sworn or non-sworn, armed or non-armed 

• Access to federal funding 

• The need for some CPSDs to rely on student employees

• CPSD responsibilities, including those not specifically related to their role 

• Policing style/range of community policing activities undertaken

• Efficiency of work schedules

• Institution expectations 

• Budget restrictions

• Lack of a universally accepted methodology for assessing appropriate staffing levels
26

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Considerations in Determining Appropriate Staffing Levels

The following draws on the author’s experience of working in the field of police resource allocation 

and work scheduling in a wide variety of policing environments, including CPSDs.

Understanding the Principles of Resource Allocation and Work Scheduling

Appropriate staffing is essentially about having sufficient people available to take on all the tasks 

required of an agency, at the time they need to be done, and in the manner (time to complete 

the task) in which they need to be carried out. Establishing and agreeing with an institution’s 

administrators on what tasks will constitute an agency’s workload should, arguably, be 

fundamental in determining the number of staff required. As part of that exercise, consideration 

should also be given to agreeing on the policing style to be adopted by the department and the 

performance criteria by which the department is to be assessed.

The policing style adopted by a CPSD will have direct implications for staffing. A reactive, 

task-driven approach apportioning officers’ time in relation to ‘time on task’ will produce a readily 

quantifiable workload. A more proactive, community oriented approach will include ‘time on task’ 

measures, but will also include a portion of officers’ time for self-initiated work and community 

policing activities, which are less easily quantified. The difference in staffing required by these two 

approaches can be substantial, depending on how the department is structured. Some tasks can be 

centralized, thus alleviating patrol officers’ committed time. A good example of this is one police 

division where follow up traffic inquiries were allocated to community officers on an ad-hoc basis. 

This, however, resulted in officers spending considerable time trying to arrange interviews around 

their shifts, days off, etc. In addition, operational priorities often meant that interviews were 

postponed. By dedicating one officer to these inquiries, the department was able to free up officer 

time and reduce the overall time committed by the department by half. 

Recruiting policies and training practices will also impact the ability of a department to adopt a 

community oriented style of policing, as the adoption and success of such a style is constrained 

by the extent of an officer’s problem solving skills. Therefore, investment in well qualified 

recruits and effective training will result in long-term benefits by resolving and preventing public 

safety problems.

While the primary initiator of community policing activities is the CPSD chief/director, it should 

be kept in mind that over 35 percent of institution administrators will also initiate activities for 

the CPSD to take on. It is, therefore, a valuable exercise that they, too, are involved in assessing the 

implications of their initiatives on staffing skills and staffing levels.

Performance Criteria. Response times to calls for service are one of the most frequently used 

police performance indicators. Unfortunately, in setting response time targets, more consideration 

is often given to how the community will perceive them rather than the staffing and cost 

implications of achieving them. 
27

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Institutions’ expectations of response time performance can be unrealistic. Two-thirds of 

institutions were found to have an expectation that urgent calls for service would be responded 

to in less than three minutes. If this is a requirement, response times to calls for service ought to 

form an important element in a CPSD workload analysis, as it will significantly impact required 

staffing levels; generally speaking, the faster the response required, the greater the number of 

staff required to achieve it.

Other performance criteria are more easily built into a workload assessment. For example, in 

assessing the time necessary to deliver a required number of safety awareness classes, organization 

and preparation time, along with time in the classroom, can be readily calculated.

Once a workload assessment has been completed and documented and the staffing numbers 

required to meet the institution’s expectations is determined, it can be compared against current 

staffing levels. If there is a gap between the two it may be that expectations or staffing levels need 

to be revised.

What should be included in a workload assessment? Essentially, a workload assessment 

should consider everything an officer spends his or her time doing, as well as things such as 

vacation time that takes officers away from work. Almost half (46 percent) of CPSDs surveyed 

already carry out a considerable number of workload measurements, so turning these measures 

into a model of required staffing would be a logical extension to that activity. 

Larger campuses (based on student population) were more likely to carry out workload measures 

than smaller ones, with the number of workload measures undertaken increasing with campus 

size. Among those CPSDs engaging in workload analysis, the number of calls for service and 

time spent on patrol were the most frequently recorded. While 68 percent of CPSDs undertook 

community policing activities, this was one of the least frequently used workload measures. 

Only one-third of those who engaged in such activities actually measured the amount of time 

committed to it. 

CPSDs, however, differ from other police agencies in many ways. In addition to normal policing 

activities, such as responding to calls for service, they assume a wide range of other functions, 

such as responsibility for fire prevention and transportation services, which are less readily 

incorporated into the type of analysis provided by most police-specific workload analysis tools. 

A comprehensive CPSDs workload analysis would need to contain a number of different elements, 

which can only briefly be addressed here:

• Response and patrol element

• Time-specific and non time-specific elements

• Proactive time element

• Administrative time element

• Lost time element
28

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Response and Patrol element. Similar to other police agencies, CPSDs are able to carry out 

an analysis of calls for service using recognized manual or computerized methods to produce a 

predictive model of the staffing required for an ‘average’ week of patrol, in order to respond to calls 

for service. Such an analysis could consider historical data regarding the number and distribution 

of calls for service averaged over a number of weeks, geographical factors such as the size of the 

campus, the desired response time to calls for service—which will differ for urgent and non-urgent 

calls—the time it takes to deal with each call, administration activities, etc. 

Table 9 shows the number of CPSD officers likely to be required to be on duty each hour during 

an average week. Although it is based on a workload analysis of a CPSD in a large institution (over 

15,000 students) located in a metropolitan environment, the distribution, if not the numbers 

required, is likely to be similar for the majority of institutions. The table has been color coded to 

demonstrate how the number of officers required will differ with time of day and day of week. 

Predictably, periods of high demand for CPSD officers coincide with their institution’s busiest 

daytime periods and require almost twice as many officers to be on duty than during the nighttime 

shifts. Those CPSDs whose schedules deploy the same number of officers on duty throughout the 

day may well find that they are overstaffing during the nighttime and understaffing during the 

daytime. Producing a staffing model and using it as the basis for the design of a work schedule can 

help to avoid this problem and potentially free up officer time.

Other time-specific elements such as gate security, building lock up/unlocks, etc., will be 

undertaken at or over specific times. Educational classes and other community policing activities, 

which are planned in advance, can also be included here. It is, therefore, possible to construct a 

model similar to the staffing distribution model for the response element, showing the required 

distribution of officers’ time over an average week for these functions.

Non time-specific elements Which will include the policing of special events, social functions, 

stadium events, security for high profile speakers, transportation services, attendance at meetings, 

etc. The timing of such events will largely be outside the department’s control. However, historical 

data can assist in assessing the overall amount of officer time spent on such activities. 

The proactive element is the most difficult element to assess as it is determined primarily 

by the policing style adopted by the department. Proactive time can be incorporated into the 

response element by increasing the amount of uncommitted time each officer has available. 

This will allow officers to assume some self-initiated work while on patrol, but it is constrained 

by the need for officers to also respond to calls for service. When assigning officers to geographic 

patrol areas as part of a community oriented policing program, CPSDs need to overcome these 

constraints by ensuring that calls are assessed to make sure officers are not unnecessarily drawn 

away from other activities, or that sufficient officers are available to respond to a call should 

the officer assigned to that area be otherwise engaged on community activities. This is the 

most difficult element to assess unless departments are able to dedicate officers exclusively to 

community oriented programs. 
29

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Table 9. Staffing Model for CPSD Officers 

Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun

00:00 – 00:59 6 7 6 6 6 7 6

01:00 – 01:59 6 5 5 6 6 6 5

02:00 – 02:59 5 5 5 5 6 6 5

03:00 – 03:59 5 4 4 4 5 5 5

04:00 – 04:59 4 4 4 4 4 5 5

05:00 – 05:59 4 4 4 4 4 5 4

06:00 – 06:59 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

07:00 – 07:59 7 6 7 6 6 5 4

08:00 – 08:59 8 6 7 7 7 6 5

09:00 – 09:59 7 7 7 7 7 6 6

10:00 – 10:59 7 7 7 7 7 6 6

11:00 – 11:59 7 7 7 7 7 6 6

12:00 – 12:59 7 7 6 7 6 6 6

13:00 – 13:59 7 7 6 7 7 5 6

14:00 – 14:59 7 7 7 7 7 6 6

15:00 – 15:59 6 7 7 7 7 6 6

16:00 – 16:59 6 7 7 6 6 6 5

17:00 – 17:59 6 7 7 7 7 6 6

18:00 – 18:59 6 7 6 6 6 5 5

19:00 – 19:59 7 6 7 6 7 6 6

20:00 – 20:59 6 7 7 6 7 6 6

21:00 – 21:59 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

22:00 – 22:59 6 6 6 6 7 6 6

23:00 – 23:59 6 7 6 7 6 6 6

Source: Strategic Direction Ltd.

Administrative element. Officers spend a portion of their working time on activities such 

as briefings, report writing, taking meal breaks, and miscellaneous administrative tasks. These 

elements need to be taken into consideration as they can account for a significant portion of 

an officer’s working day. For example, officers in almost half of CPSDs spend between 10 to 25 

percent of their working time on report writing and other administrative tasks.
30

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Figure 3. Shift Relief Factor (SRF)

SRF = (365 x shift length) / (365 x shift length) - (Average officer time off per year)

Example:

Scheduled Days Off per year (5 on - 2 off cycle) 104.3

Lost time per year (vacation, sick days, etc.) 40.7

TOTAL DAYS OFF = 145 

TOTAL HOURS OFF = 145 x 8 hrs per day = 1160 hours

SRF = (365 x 8hr shift) / (365 x 8hr shift) - 1160

SRF = 2920 / (2920 - 1160)

SRF = 2920 / 1760

SRF = 1.66 

If the total officer hours required per week = 1,200

TOTAL NUMBER OF OFFICERS REQUIRED = 1,200 x 1.66 

= 1,922 hours / 40 hours 

= 50 officers 

Lost time element. Officers will not be available for 40 hours of duty every week. Vacation, 

sickness, on-duty court time, and external training will often take officers away from campus. 

While each of the other elements is concerned with identifying the amount of ‘on-duty’ officer 

time required to meet the demands on the department, the lost time element identifies the 

number of work hours during which officers are not available. 

Calculating required staffing numbers. Combining each of the workload elements will 

provide the total number of officer hours required to undertake the department’s identified 

workload. This must then be translated into the actual number of officers that need to be 

employed to match this workload. While the precise number of officer hours required will be 

influenced by the efficiency of the work schedule adopted, a useful assessment can be achieved 

by using a calculation commonly referred to as the “Shift Relief Factor.”37 This is a method of 

determining the number of officers an agency needs to cover each position each day. In Figure 3, 

a workload assessment has determined that an agency requires a total of 1,200 ‘on-duty’ officer 

hours each week which, based on a 40-hour work week, would equate to a total of 30 officers. 

The Shift Relief Factor has calculated that in order to achieve this number of ‘on-duty’ officer 

hours, the agency actually needs to employ 50 officers.

37. Patrol Allocation Manual: Determination of the Number and Allocation of Personnel for Patrol Services for

State Police Departments, Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, April 1993
31

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

The work schedule element. Once the total number of officers required has been determined, 

this can be compared against current staffing levels and the current work schedule. Adequate 

staffing numbers do not always equate to adequate performance; having the right number of 

people does not necessarily mean that they are going to be “in the right place, at the right time.” 

Deciding upon the right work schedule is a crucial element in the process. The ‘response’ and 

‘other time-specific’ elements of the workload analysis will show how the greater portion of 

officers’ working time needs to be distributed throughout the week. Professional judgment and 

experience will suggest how the remaining ‘non time-specific’ and ‘proactive’ elements should be 

similarly distributed. 

Deciding upon a work schedule that will match, as closely as possible, the required staffing 

distribution is not a simple task, and a number of factors need to be taken into consideration, 

including:

• Health and Safety; minimum staffing levels, officer safety, etc.

• Employment Law; Fair Labor Act, etc.

• Officers’ terms and conditions of service

• Workload equity

• Time off

• Predictability of schedule

• Fatigue/health aspects of the schedule

• Compatibility with officers’ domestic situation

It is an unfortunate fact of life that the dynamic nature of police work often means that peaks 

in demand will occur at times when officers would prefer to be away from work; evening and 

weekend work is often unpopular. As no shift pattern can satisfy everyone’s needs, a balance 

has to be struck between the needs of the institution and the needs and welfare of the officers. 

Consultation with staff and their active involvement in reviewing schedule options are significant 

factors in achieving effective operational cover and staff satisfaction. 

Considerations in Managing and Maintaining 

Appropriate Staffing Levels 

The most commonly overlooked aspect of resource allocation projects is what happens after 

a workload assessment has been done and a work schedule decided upon. A comprehensive 

workload analysis may provide an accurate assessment of a department’s overall staffing 

requirement, while an efficient work schedule may distribute those staff to closely match the 

workload. However, on their own these two elements will not provide the outcomes sought. 

Considerable time, effort, and cost is often expended on a workload assessment and identifying 

a workable schedule, but all too often little consideration is given to the fact that a schedule must 

be managed if it is to remain fit for purpose. Unanticipated changes in the level or distribution of 

demand, the introduction of new procedures or initiatives, or an increase or decrease in officers’ 

absences can all significantly impact the officers’ workload, the efficiency of the work schedule, 

and the adequacy of officer numbers. 
32

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Figure 4. Cycle of Workload Assessment

The processes involved in maintaining appropriate staffing levels, therefore, need to be 

considered as part of an ongoing cycle of workload assessment, the calculation of staff required 

to match the workload, the design of a suitable schedule and the management (with clear lines 

of responsibility), and review of that schedule (see Figure 4).

Training element. Providing appropriate training for those individuals with responsibility for 

managing officers’ working time, and for monitoring those factors that impact it, completes the 

final element in the process. These “resource managers” are then best able to manage absences 

from duty, control the use of overtime, and identify the potential for improving efficiency with 

existing resources. Institution administrators are unlikely to agree to a request for increased 

staffing levels if a department is not demonstrably making the best possible use of its existing 

resources. 

Why Is Workload Analysis not More Widely Used?

CPSDs are not alone in failing to embrace the benefits of workload analysis to determine their 

staffing requirements. Many police departments have been slow to adopt it for similar reasons; 

the process is time consuming, requires considerable historical data, and a level of understanding 

of resource allocation and work scheduling techniques. There are also associated costs; training is 

required in order to utilize manual assessment tools and the cost of either acquiring the expertise 

or the purchase of proprietary assessment tools to conduct such analysis is beyond the resources 

of many CPSDs.

Given these considerations and the information gained from survey responses, it becomes 

apparent why determining appropriate staffing levels is such a widespread challenge among 

CPSDs. IACLEA’s initial intention was to explore the potential to develop a resource tool to 

determine appropriate staffing levels for CPSDs to help them overcome the obstacles to extending 

community policing activities. In reality, no single tool can provide a solution; a toolkit containing 

guidelines, checklists, templates, educational programs, etc., would be required to encompass all 

the required elements of a workload assessment. 
33

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Is There Potential to Develop a Resource Toolkit to 

Determine Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus 

Public Safety Departments?

What Is Currently Available to Assist CPSDs in Establishing Appropriate 

Staffing Levels?

Determining how many police officers are required to handle all the responsibilities of a police 

agency has always been a challenge for police managers. While methods exist for calculating 

the number needed to carry out a measurable workload, such as responding to calls for service, 

most community policing work is difficult to measure and the time required to do it is similarly 

difficult to calculate. Some agencies are able to address this because they have officers dedicated 

exclusively to such roles. For example, 31 percent of CPSDs surveyed dedicated a least one officer 

exclusively to a community policing role. Most other CPSDs, on the other hand, seek to apportion 

a part of their officers’ time to community policing activities, with estimates ranging from less 

than 10 percent to over 75 percent of their working time. This was not related to the overall size 

of the CPSD—examples were found of agencies with less than ten officers estimating that over 50 

percent of their officer’s time was spent on such activities and of agencies with over one hundred 

officers estimating their officers spent less than 10 percent of their time on such activities. 

Ultimately it is a matter of professional judgment as to how an agency, within the financial 

constraints of its budget, can best provide a service to its community and manage a reasonable and 

equitable workload for its staff. However, if an agency is to undertake more community policing 

activities, as is the desire of the majority of CPSDs, then it needs to be able to identify the time 

available in which to assume them. This process requires that the CPSD is able to quantify those 

aspects of its workload that are measurable, that it examines how that workload is managed, and 

whether its officers are organized in such a way as to make the most efficient use of their time. 

There is considerable potential for this to lead to either changes in working practices or officer 

schedules creating spare capacity in which officers can undertake additional activities. It is also 

important for CPSDs and institution administrators to know when there is not any more spare 

capacity to be found.

There are a number of ways in which this process can be carried out. It can be done by the agency 

itself, using manual methods of calculating workload—there are software programs available—or 

by one of a number of management consultants who specialize in this field. Each has benefits and 

drawbacks relating to time, effort, or cost. The following is a brief summary of the options available.

Manual methods. One of the most widely used manuals for calculating required police officer 

numbers was first developed in the early 1990s under contract to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The principal author of the study was 

Dr. William Stenzel, whose research into police work-scheduling began in the 1970s, and who 

remains preeminent in the field. Although the work was commissioned by the Department of 

Transportation and, therefore, emphasis was placed on traffic patrol work, the manual was also 

applicable for general police patrol work. 
34

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

The manual, which is essentially a series of calculations, was designed to address the following 

questions:

• What is the total number of officers, supervisors, and command personnel required to provide 

acceptable levels of patrol service?

• How should patrol officers be allocated—by geographic regions or time periods—to maximize 

agency productivity?

The procedures used by the Police Allocation Manual (PAM) are based on the analysis of patrol 

workload, performance objectives, personnel policies, and the roadway system within a police 

geographic area. Officer time, both on and off duty, is defined as either patrol time or non-patrol 

time. Non-patrol time includes all off-duty time and on-duty non-patrol assignments. On-duty 

time is divided into four components:

• Reactive time (attending calls for service)

• Proactive (self initiated and community oriented activities) time

• Proactive (uncommitted) time

• Administrative time

The above components allow for considerable influence to be exerted on the final estimate 

of police officers required, by increasing or decreasing the time allocated to proactive or 

administration time. It also shows the level of service that would be achieved with more or 

fewer officers.

The manual can be downloaded from the Administration’s website.38

Workload Analysis Programs. A number of police departments have, with varying degrees 

of success, developed their own methodologies and programs for analyzing patrol and other 

departmental workloads. Aside from these, there are a number of established and widely 

recognized computer programs, including an updated model of PAM, now referred to as Personnel 

Allocation Model, which has been converted to an automated format.

A number of commercial computer programs have evolved which, by utilizing queuing theory, 

allow a more accurate analysis to be produced than is possible with manual methods. Queuing 

theory enables mathematical analysis of several related processes, in this case the number of calls 

for service of differing priority and requiring a different level (number of officers) and speed of 

response. The theory allows the calculation of several performance measures, such as the average 

waiting time for a patrol to attend a call or the probability that all patrol units will be busy and a 

call will be held in a queue. 

Other commercial computer programs have been developed to provide simulation models of how 

varying levels of workload and staffing affect patrol performance. They also rely on mathematical 

formulas, including queuing theory, to model patrol staffing requirements.

38. www.nhtsa.
35

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

All of these programs rely on the analysis of historical data, such as the number and distribution 

of officer dispatches. The staffing models they produced are those required to provide an effective 

reactive service. They will identify the overall number and distribution (by time of day) of officers 

required to be on duty to provide this service. Program outputs will identify whether an agency 

has sufficient, more than sufficient, or less than sufficient officers to undertake this function. By 

comparing current staffing distributions against the staffing models, an assessment can also be 

made of the efficiency of current deployment practices and whether additional capacity can be 

obtained by adjusting the work schedule.

For example, during 2009 the Norfolk Constabulary in the U.K. used this process to reorganize its 

patrol function and introduce a new work schedule. They were subsequently able to redeploy 50 of 

their 350 patrol officers to community policing roles without any loss in performance. 

These programs will also identify the amount of uncommitted time (time not spent on servicing 

calls or doing administrative duties) that individual officers will each have available to them. While 

some uncommitted time is essential to ensure that performance criteria, such as response times, 

are met, it does allow police managers to determine whether, given their current staffing levels, 

some officers could be diverted to other activities without reducing the level of uncommitted time 

of remaining officers to an unacceptable level.

Management Consultants. There are a large number of private consulting companies 

operating in the field of workload analysis who are able to apply their methods to the specific 

requirements of police departments who wish to determine the staffing levels required to match 

their workloads. The consulting companies usually have the benefit of being experienced in this 

field and can be a convenient alternative to computer programs with their associated purchase 

costs and training implications. They may also be able to assist with the design of alternative work 

schedules.

Training. Specific courses on resource allocation and work scheduling techniques are available 

throughout the United States from a range of private companies and academic institutions.

What Are the Difficulties CPSDs Face in Utilizing These Products and Services?

• The products and services all require the CPSD to have been actively engaged in collecting 

workload and call data for a period of time.

• Those departments with few employees or employing only non-sworn officers may have 

difficulty accessing training or support from organizations such as the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police.

• There are preliminary and ongoing cost implications attached to the use of commercial 

computer programs. This is likely to deter many CPSDs, particularly those with smaller 

budgets.

• The financial constraints of smaller CPSDs are also likely to constrain their use of consultants.

• Computer modeling tools will only account for a portion of CPSD workload.

• There is no central repository of advice and support to assist CPSDs in identifying suitably 

qualified/experienced consultants.
36

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Conclusion

This report has sought to identify ways in which efficient resource allocation and effective work 

schedules can serve CPSDs and their institutions in establishing appropriate staffing levels, 

and in doing so identify opportunities to engage in or expand community policing activities 

on campus. It does not attempt to determine the total number of staff a CPSD would need 

to undertake all the activities it would wish, as those decisions are determined more by the 

priorities of their institutions and budgetary constraints. It does seek to explore ways in which 

CPSDs can establish what capacity they have, so they can do more with their current resources 

and in doing so give both them and their institutions a clearer picture of current issues relating 

to staffing and what is achievable.
37

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Bibliography

Annual Security Report. 2008. Mount St. Mary College, Los Angeles. 

www.msmc.la.edu/Include/campussafety/2008-annual-report-chalon.pdf.

Assessment of Campus Security for University of South Florida, Hallcrest Systems Inc., 2007.

Baum, K., P. Klaus. 2005. Violent Victimization of College Students, 1995-2002, Special Report. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 206836.

Bittner, E. 1990. Some Reflections on Staffing Problem-Oriented Policing. American Journal of 

Policing 9(3).

Bromley, Max L., and Brian A. Reaves. 1998. Comparing Campus and Municipal Police: 

The Human Resource Dimension. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and 

Management 21(3).

Community Policing Defined. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2012. http://ric-zai-inc.com/ric.php?page=detail&id=COPS-P157.

Crime in the United States, 2007: Persons Arrested. Federal Bureau of Investigations, 

U.S. Department of Justice. www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html.

Dabek, F. 1999. Campus Police Labor Dispute with MIT Enters Second Year. The Tech 119(27). 

http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N27/26cps.27n.html.

DuBois, L. 2009. An Overview of Staffing Analysis. Journal Of Local Government Auditors 22(3).

Greenberg, Sheldon. 2005. National Summit on Campus Public Safety: Strategies for Colleges 

and Universities in a Homeland Security Environment. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, NCJ 210917.

Patrol Allocation Manual: Determination of the Number and Allocation of Personnel for Patrol Services 

for State Police Departments, Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, 1993. 

Patrol Staffing and Deployment Study: 2, International Association of Chiefs of Police, 

www.theiacp.org.

Reaves, Brian A. 2008. Campus Law Enforcement 2004-05, Special Report, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 219374.

Reaves, Brian A. 2008a. Trends in Campus Policing: A Comparison of the 1994-95 and 2004-05 

BJS Surveys. Campus Law Enforcement Journal 38(3).

Reaves, Brian A., and Andrew L. Goldberg. 1996. Campus Law Enforcement Agencies, 1995. 

U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 161137. www.bjs.gov.

Regional Community Policing Institutes. COPS Fact Sheet, Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice.

Riseling, S. Problem-Solving Policing at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Community Policing On 

Campus, IACLEA Monograph 1995.

Sammons, G. 2008. Do You Need More Officers? Campus Law Enforcement Journal 38(2).
38

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

Schrock, S. 2007. Community defeats proposed police increase. Star-Telegram, Arlington 

www.star-telegraph.com/arlingtonnews/story/368006html.

Schuiterman, J. G. 1985. Allocating State Troopers: The Virginia Experience. The Police Chief 41.

Skogan, W.G., L. Steiner, J. DuBois, J. E. Gudell, A. Fagan. 2002. Taking Stock: Community Policing in 

Chicago, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, NCJ 189909.

Snyder, Thomas D., and Sally A. Dillow. 2009. “Table 266.” In Digest of Education Statistics, National 

Center for Education Statistics: 390–391.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as Amended. U.S. Department of Labor. Wage and Hour 

Division Publication 1318. 2004.
39

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

About the Authors

Sue Woolfenden Q.P.M., Ph.D.

Sue Woolfenden is a resource management consultant with Strategic Direction Ltd., a U.K. 

based company with offices in Burlington, Ontario. She was formerly a senior police officer with 

Merseyside Police, a member of the U.K. Police Service and has experience across a wide range of 

policing environments.

She has worked for the British Government including the Home Office, Foreign Office, and 

Ministry of Defence, advising on publications and undertaking research. While serving as an 

officer, she held the post of associate tutor at the National Police College.

Sue holds a doctorate in social administration conferred by the University of Manchester (U.K.), 

and in 2000 was decorated by Her Majesty the Queen for services to policing.

Bill Stevenson Ph.D.

Bill Stevenson is a resource management consultant and project management lead with Strategic 

Direction Ltd. An accountant by profession, he has been involved in Police Service IT systems for 

more than 25 years and has been directly involved in the design and development of police specific 

computer aided resource management systems. 

Bill holds a Doctorate in European Economics and Business Management conferred by the 

Metropolitan University of Leeds (U.K.).
40

Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments

About the COPS Office

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS Office) is the component of the U.S. Department of 

Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community 

policing by the nation’s state, local, territory, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies through information and grant resources. 

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the 

systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the 

immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear 

of crime. 

Rather than simply responding to crimes once they have been committed, community policing 

concentrates on preventing crime and eliminating the atmosphere of fear it creates. Earning the 

trust of the community and making those individuals stakeholders in their own safety enables law 

enforcement to better understand and address both the needs of the community and the factors 

that contribute to crime.

The COPS Office awards grants to state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies to 

hire and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime fighting 

technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies. COPS Office funding also 

provides training and technical assistance to community members and local government leaders 

and all levels of law enforcement. The COPS Office has produced and compiled a broad range of 

information resources that can help law enforcement better address specific crime and operational 

issues, and help community leaders better understand how to work cooperatively with their law 

enforcement agency to reduce crime.

• Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested nearly $14 billion to add community policing 

officers to the nation’s streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime 

prevention initiatives, and provide training and technical assistance to help advance 

community policing. 

• By the end of FY2012, the COPS Office has funded approximately 124,000 additional 

officers to more than 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the 

country in small and large jurisdictions alike.

• Nearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government leaders 

have been trained through COPS Office-funded training organizations.

• As of 2012, the COPS Office has distributed more than 8.5 million topic-specific 

publications, training curricula, white papers, and resource CDs. 

COPS Office resources, covering a wide breadth of community policing topics—from school and 

campus safety to gang violence—are available, at no cost, through its online Resource Center at 

www.cops.usdoj.gov. This easy-to-navigate website is also the grant application portal, providing 

access to online application forms. 

The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) engaged 

Strategic Direction Ltd. to conduct a study of appropriate campus public safety staffing levels. 

They conducted a thorough review of existing literature on this topic, convened focus groups 

to identify staffing issues and considerations, and administered a comprehensive survey of 

U.S. campus public safety departments. Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus 

Public Safety Departments identifies the factors and considerations that impact staffing, 

including the characteristics of a particular campus, the geographic setting (urban, rural, 

suburban), number of students, faculty, and staff, programs and/or facilities that have security 

implications, venues and athletic programs that affect campus public safety staffing, and 

other considerations.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street NE

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details on COPS Office programs, 

call the COPS Office Response Center at 800-421-6770

Visit the COPS Office online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

Originally published July 2011

Updated 2013

ISBN: 978-1-935676-34-8 

e061122378